Michigan reacts to NAFTA, CAFTA & TPP – Have unions decided to stop cutting thier own throats?
First of all, as to the question, no. Unions are small brained, lumbering beasts. Here is Delaware, for example, Unions are openly and resolutely in bed with politicians like John Carney and Tom Carper. They get nothing of real value out of the relationship, but bumble and stumble along oblivious of the long term damage these supply-side “centrists” are inflicting on their economic prospects. So, no. Unions have not decided to stop cutting their own throats.
And yet the Democratic Party primary results in Michigan can give us hope that while “unions” will be lagging indicators, “voters” may be waking up to the fact that the “free trade” economy ushered in by Bill Clinton’s execrable NAFTA bill is simply not working for them. And that is a good thing.
Can the Democratic nominee capitalize on this awakening? If the nominee is Bernie Sander, then clearly, yes. His whole raison d’etre is throwing a spotlight on the rotten system [ushered in by Bill Clinton’s execrable NAFTA bill] which serves the top 1%of our economy exclusively.
If the nominee is Hillary Clinton, that’s a stickier wicket. How does Hillary come off as the economic populist that the times seem to demand? Her road looks especially rocky if she is facing Donald Trump, a man who is threatening to steal the white working middle class [E.g the people most injured by, and pissed off about the free trade economy ushered in by Bill Clinton’s execrable NAFTA bill] out from underneath the Democrats by simply telling the truth about NAFTA, CAFTA and TPP.
When you look at it, Hillary has built her lead by winning states that have no chance of falling into the D column in November.
However, if the D’s lose rust-belt states to Trump, who was able to gin up worker resentment and is likely to do the same vs. Hillary, he could well end up as President.
Maybe Michigan is an outlier, maybe not. We’ll see in the next couple of weeks.
The GOP “establishment” see this and stops being opposed to Trump this week.
From Thomas Frank at the Guardian:
“…I also noticed something surprising. In each of the speeches I watched, Trump spent a good part of his time talking about (trade)
In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build a wall along the Mexican border… He did it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about … trade.
It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those companies’ CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.
Trump embellished this vision with another favorite leftwing idea: under his leadership, the government would “start competitive bidding in the drug industry”. (“We don’t competitively bid!” he marveled – another true fact, a legendary boondoggle brought to you by the George W Bush administration.) Trump extended the critique to the military-industrial complex, describing how the government is forced to buy lousy but expensive airplanes thanks to the power of industry lobbyists.
Thus did he hint at his curious selling proposition: because he is personally so wealthy, a fact about which he loves to boast, Trump himself is unaffected by business lobbyists and donations. And because he is free from the corrupting power of modern campaign finance, famous deal-maker Trump can make deals on our behalf that are “good” instead of “bad”.
Hillary is deeply vulnerable on trade issues.
Ya think?
It is the kind of vetting you would expect from a primary. The problem is, she doesn’t have (and probably cannot have) a good response to the trade vulnerability.
…And they never expected someone from the “R” side making an issue of it.
This election could be a clusterfuck to end all clusterfucks.
I heard a doozy of a rationalization on MSNBC last night. Without attribution, one of the talking heads said that Hillary ‘didn’t lift a finger on behalf of NAFTA’. She was supposedly all-consumed by her insurance legislation. Now, how would said talking head have any idea that Hillary ‘didn’t lift a finger’ on NAFTA? Only one place: Somebody from the Hillary campaign leaked that assertion, and he reported it as fact.
I wonder where this race would be if Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in lockstep with Clinton’s media friends, hadn’t done everything they could to deny Bernie free media, either through prime time debates and/or fair coverage.
So here we are, once again, about a third of the way through the campaign, and, just like in 2008, Clinton’s campaign is stuck in the mud and an insurgent campaign is breaking through.
No wonder they wanted the meme to be: “It’s over. Stop now.”
It’s not.
Barring yuuuge primary wins for Bernie, it is pretty much over. I can’t believe I’m back where I was in 2008 – doing math.
Look, I’m fine with our candidates debating the issues. What I am 100% done with is the over-the-top language against Clinton. Part of me really hopes Sanders can pull out a miracle because I don’t see many (not all. Hello, Ben! 🙂 ) Bernie supporters voting for Clinton. Seriously, given everything you guys write (the GOP’s got nothing on you!) how, in good conscience could you vote for someone you write such horrible things about? How would voting for Clinton, if she wins, align with your principles? It doesn’t. And I’m not sure I can deal with the same nonsense from this group that Obama faced early in his presidency. Then again, I fully expect some people to be the fair-weather friends they’ve proven to be even if Bernie becomes President.
Know why we’re discussing improving healthcare and single payer today? It’s because of the ACA. If that hadn’t passed we’d be back to square one. And while “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was nonsense it laid the groundwork to where gay rights are now, by showing the public that gay people in the military wasn’t a big deal. I understand that pragmatism is out of fashion and that yuge/revolutionary ideas are all the rage and that’s fine, but maybe we can give credit where credit is due and tone down the rhetoric?
I’m sticking with my prediction from a few weeks ago. A good chunk of Bernie supporters would vote for Trump if Hillary wins the nomination. And why wouldn’t they given that Trump is now co-opting Bernie’s message – and doing a damn good job with it. I watched Trump’s victory speech last night. That was a totally new, more restrained Trump – the one that’s now running a general election campaign.
Hold on now… I don’t hate Clinton, but why isn’t Clinton co-opting Bernie’s message on so-called “free trade”? If it is working with Democrats and isn’t this why we have elections?
Also – El Som – that sounds like Mrs Greenspan – Andrea Mitchell
“How would voting for Clinton, if she wins, align with your principles? ”
It’s called a hold your nose, lesser of two evils vote. I do it all the time.
“A good chunk of Bernie supporters would vote for Trump if Hillary wins the nomination.”
And a good chunk of Hillary supporters would stay home on Election Day if Bernie wins the nomination. Because Hillary’s campaign has falsely convinced them that Sanders is somehow deficient on racial or women’s rights issues. Not to mention, the Democratic leadership and the Clinton machine would fall silent during a Sanders general election campaign.
If Trump wasn’t such a buffoon appealing to racist rubes and Hillary is the dem candidate, I could be convinced to vote for him
Nonsense, puck. We actually know what Hillary supporters/Clinton machine would do if Bernie was the nominee – the same thing they did in 2008.
Jason, you’ve been quite measured, and I’d like her to beef her trade message. That’s a fine debate. What I’m done with, and have said before, are comments on this blog that could have come directly from FOX news. I don’t respond to them most of the time, because they really aren’t issue based. They read like, “Hillary is the devil!” And I truly believe if a person feels that way then I’m not relying on their vote or their support. Seriously, I’d have more respect for these guys if they just added, “I’ll never vote for her” at the end of their comments because given everything they write I can’t imagine ever selling out my principles that way. So either they mean what they write, or they don’t. Just own it.
When it comes to Trump vs Sanders then we’ll be discussing the white guy (and some gal) vote and I’m not sure Sanders wins that fight.
And there you go. See Mouse’s comment. And Trump won’t be a buffoon or racist in the general, so there goes that vote.
“What I’m done with, and have said before, are comments on this blog that could have come directly from FOX news.”
And I must say you are doing a fine job keeping this blog free of those types of comments, apart from the intermittent and easily ignored right wing trolls.
Hillary isnt the Devil, but Schultz is…….. not a “regular person” democrat. (see what i did there?) Or, at least, she is no Howard Dean.
If Hillary supporters.. and even the campaign… would knowledge and condemn the DNC manipulating the election for her, it would only strengthen her credibility. It isnt like the DNC is going to back a republican, or anyone else.
I don’t think many disaffected Sanders supporters will go to Trump, The supporters I know like him for all the reasons he is opposite of Trump. I DO think they may stay home.
And, just to be clear, that isn’t an attack on Clinton. It is a lot to ask of a campaign to disavow support from a shady organization….. (wait, did he just compare the DNC to the KKK?)….. But her support and “friends” from the Establishment isnt something that should just be written off as a right-wing talking point. Very real people who read very real news have very real concerns about it. All writing them off does is further alienate them and compromise their support.
I’m not sure a Democrat would call out the DNC. I’m not even sure how that would look like. Can you tell me what she should say/do, Ben?
And you think the Bernie supporters you know may sit the election out? I get that feeling, as well, Ben – in fact, I’ve been told it many times. Is this due to the fact that Bernie’s support is strongest among progressive Independents?
But everyone should take a good, long look at Mouse’s comment. Everyone okay with that? He’s a white, male Bernie supporter who could envision voting for Trump – so, on some level, Trump’s message is resonating with him. That’s concerning.
The “centrists” Democratic economic free trade policies are hitting everyone now. For a while it was just blue collar manufacturing jobs, so fuck those guys. Now it is research scientists, engineers, and others who thought they were protected from free trade by having post graduate degrees.
I think the backlash against NAFTA is going to be harsh and it is going to be ugly. Bernie wants a velvet revolution (unrealistic), Trump voters what to burn shit down (scary), and Clinton says, stay the course (depressing).
She couldnt do it, but a surrogate could start talking about how the will of the party is important. She can benefit all she wants from the SuperDelegates, while bemoaning the system that is keeping her on top. It’s an optics thing, but I suspect it would work.
I know this isnt the intent… but i feel like it insults the intelligence of Sanders supporters to say we (i know, not me) will be duped by Trump’s inevitable pivot away from the Klan. We’re the people who endlessly share memes and social media posts, and things candidates said in the past. It will be the traditional media who forgets (totally fails) to hold Trump accountable for his rhetoric, the very institution most Bernie supporters are already fed up with and distrustful of.
Following with the union theme here, this primary election brings to mind multiple union organizational meetings… Bernie is the one who would get up and speak of the reasons a shop should unionize. And Hillary would be the one who steps up and speaks for future job security solely by not rocking the BOSSES’s boat….
The more I think over it, the more that anology seems to get closer and closer to a nugget of truth….
By God, if I don’t get my revolution I’m going to stay home and pout! Who cares if we end up with a right wing White House, Congress, and SCOTUS? Really, what’s the worse that could possibly happen? So what if they repeal a few laws, institute a few other laws? Come on, these are laws of the land now and it will take more than one party controlling all branches of the government to do any real damage. Oh wait, there are only 3 aren’t there…Oh well, this is the 21st century. We have rights. No one’s going to take those rights away at this point.
Trump didn’t co-opt Bernie’s message on trade. Both Trump and Bernie have been saying it from the beginning. They just brought it to the forefront because of Michigan.
Carpers support of the Obama South Korean trade agreement ballooned our trade deficit with South Korea. Did everyone sleep through that little gem in 2010? Yes. Yes, we did.
Both parties have failed and continue to fail this nation when it comes to trade. We have never had a cohesive long term economic strategy. And when you show up at a D State party leadership meeting and mention anything even close to protectionism or putting our state or nation FIRST, you get stares of disbelief at how dare you try to protect this state or country.
@Ben. I don’t think you (and many) Bernie supporters will be duped by Trump. I think there’s a common theme between some white male Bernie supporters and white male Trump supporters. I’ve seen it in the comments on this blog for years. You can reread this thread and pick a few of them out.
I’m also not sure how Clinton, or a surrogate, would benefit from calling out the DNC at this point in time. And, no, I’m not defending the DNC just not sure how starting a fight benefits her campaign. Bernie is deliberately running as the anti-establishment candidate. He makes no bones about. It’s a crucial part of his platform. I think that’s great. But for a newborn Dem to suddenly join the party – mainly by taking on the establishment and also not supporting down ticket candidates – and then want it changed to benefit him is asking a lot, no? Bernie picked this fight (and I think it’s a good one), but he’ll have to, you know, actually fight the system.
@Kavips. Way to reduce Clinton to a stereotype to suit your world view. Way to erase all the amazing things she has accomplished. Lazy.
I think that in the “Bernie supporters who will go vote for Trump” argument you guys are missing something. Both Bernie and Trump are effectively running as populists–a left populist and a right populist (yes, I know The Donald isn’t all that consistent at it, but those are the folks he’s attracting to his base.
Populism splintered into Left and Right after the 1890s–if you go back even five years and look at the Tea Party vs. Occupy “platforms” and then compare them to the 1888, 1892, and 1896 Populist Party platforms you can easily see that both right and left populists are laying claim to the same heritage. And a Left Populist would tend to go more for a Right Populist than a Centrist or even a Progressive.
In historical terms–and this is very important–populism was primarily a white agrarian movement–the pockets of black populists were kept safely segregated from the movement’s mainstream, and therefore most of the original Black Populists tended to drift toward the Progressives.
What Populist voters are forever trying to elect is not someone to implement specific, workable policy ideas, but to put in office somebody who will be “their guy/gal” looking out for them against the entrenched special interests. That presentation is what Bernie and Donald have in common, and that’s why–if Donald didn’t get the GOP nomination and Bernie was the Dem–you’d actually see it happening the other way, with a significant percentage of Trump’s supporters voting for Bernie.
This…
… is exactly what I’m seeing. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been told by Bernie supporters that social issues don’t matter or that we’ve spent too much time on them. It not only comes across as an inability to do several things at one time, but also as people are “so over” all these “non-issues”.
There’s also a lot of telling people working on women’s issues, gay issues, BLM, immigration, etc. that they should be working on more important things. It’s like they want to harness these activists’ energy, time and work and redirect it to what they feel is the most important issue. It worries me on another level, because if you and your candidate are so committed to one issue then does that lead to other issues suddenly becoming bargaining chips? I’m just not sure.
“What Populist voters are forever trying to elect is not someone to implement specific, workable policy ideas, but to put in office somebody who will be “their guy/gal” looking out for them against the entrenched special interests. ”
Not me. I want to elect someone who will implement specific workable policy ideas against the entrenched special interests. Promises to “look out for me” don’t cut it without the specifics. Even Republicans say they are looking out for me.
What Steve is describing sounds like tribalism, not populism.
puck
You get the point and miss it at the same time–or else you just don’t understand populism. Populism is about the idea that elected leaders’ primary job is to directly represent the best interests of their constituents against the “Special interests,” the “big boys,” or the “out of touch.” Populists speak a language that argues that the common wisdom of the everyday people should be the touchstone of policy–it is a part of the American anti-intellectual movement and depends heavily on subjective definitions of “fair” rather than workable compromises or pragmatic policies.
Read about Virginia’s Henry “The Big Boys have made their deal” Howell some time.
@j “His whole raison d’etre is throwing a spotlight on the rotten system [ushered in by Bill Clinton’s execrable NAFTA bill] which serves the top 1%of our economy exclusively.”
This just isn’t true!
Free trade is a wonderful thing, as long as everyone plays fair. I have benefitted greatly from our free trade agreements. It makes what I earn go so much farther than it otherwise would.
You want to see our economy tank, big time??? Just stop the ships from Asia and the trucks from Mexico…
Blocking free trade is basically just another form of competitive rent seeking.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-rent-seeking-is-too-damn-high/
How is it any different than licensing barbers (to restrict competition)?
Just because the 1% benefits does not mean that the rest of us don’t…
@ES “Maybe Michigan is an outlier, maybe not. We’ll see in the next couple of weeks.”
It most likely is an outlier. It’s been reported that thousands of non-Democrats crossed over to cast a vote for Bernie. But they weren’t really voting for Bernie, they were actually voting against Hillary. That’s one large reason the polling was so far off.
I think that Bernie got more votes in Grand Rapids than there are Democrats who live there.
These guys won’t be doing that in most of the remaining states (either closed or semi-closed or semi-open primaries). There are only 8 open primary states still to vote.
Free trade is a wonderful thing, as long as everyone plays fair.
When has that ever happened?
You want to see our economy tank, big time??? Just stop the ships from Asia and the trucks from Mexico…
Who is proposing to “stop” the ships or trucks? Better to add tariffs to reflect the true cost of those goods in terms of lost American jobs and lost opportunity. The imports won’t stop but the cost equation will shift enough until some of those goods are made by Americans again.
Blocking free trade is basically just another form of competitive rent seeking.
True. But nobody is talking about a blockade; it’s just building the true cost into the price. Once the price reflects the true cost then investors and consumers can make better decisions about where to direct their money.
Just because the 1% benefits does not mean that the rest of us don’t…
That won’t happen until the US makes the goods they buy again.
“Free trade is a wonderful thing, as long as everyone plays fair. I have benefited greatly from our free trade agreements. It makes what I earn go so much farther than it otherwise would.”
Excuse me while I puke. This “the consumers benefit” argument was made by Cokie Roberts on MSNBC and it was just as fraudulent and threadbare when she said it. Also, if you can’t see how stupid and shallow it is, I’m not going to waste keystrokes explaining it.
The old Walmart argument… our shit is cheap and it’s the only stuff the poor can afford! And so what that the underpants were sewn by a 14 year old Bangladeshi girl who just last week died when the roof of the “factory” collapsed. They were on sale $12.99 for a pack of three!
@J “This “the consumers benefit” argument was made by Cokie Roberts on MSNBC and it was just as fraudulent and threadbare when she said it.”
Look… I don’t think I should have to pay you more for stuff I buy, just because your my neighbor.
You’re the one trying to restrict trade, so the onus is on you to show its benefit.
“Mr. Sanders peddles fiction on free trade”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-sanders-peddles-fiction-on-free-trade/2016/03/09/9dde0a0e-e634-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html
Bringing back Smoot Hawley isn’t going to fix our problems…
“Look… I don’t think I should have to pay you more for stuff I buy, just because your my neighbor.”
That is is just too stupid for me to respond to. Sorry. I need you to think about it first for a while. Consider the full loaded “costs” of your allegedly cheap “stuff” for a second. Then get back to me.
I like free trade. What I don’t like is putting the taxpayer on the hook when things go wrong (the main problem with the TPP).
But the free trade part? Sure we get cheap stuff, but we can also sell our stuff too, with little restriction. It’s bidirectional. Factor in the loaded costs for not being able to sell abroad, and then get back to me…
Look at the countries with significant trade barriers today… You want us to be like that??
@DG “And so what that the underpants were sewn by a 14 year old Bangladeshi girl who just last week died when the roof of the “factory” collapsed. They were on sale $12.99 for a pack of three!”
…and that’s why we need actual free trade agreements that enforce a level playing field.
But don’t blame that on free trade itself.
…and that’s why we need actual free trade agreements that enforce a level playing field.
Oh it will level out when wages, working standards, environmental controls in the US get to Bangladeshi levels.
Face it. You live in a dreamland, but enjoy all your “cheap” stuff.
Trade wars aren’t about blocking everything; they are about adding some necessary friction to the system where it is needed. A trade war can be fought intelligently and managed to prevent entire sectors from collapsing. Advance where you are strong, retreat where you are weak. I’ll take that over a freefall race to the bottom any day.
@J “Oh it will level out when wages, working standards, environmental controls in the US get to Bangladeshi levels.”
Oh come on… You should know that good trade agreements can help put a stop to child labor and slavery.
What’s your plan for stopping slavery and child labor?
“What’s your plan for stopping slavery and child labor?”
To ban the import or sale of goods made using slavery or child labor. Next question.
puck for the win!
Really, LE?
1. Were you trying to make a point?
2. Are you an idiot?
@p “To ban the import or sale of goods made using slavery or child labor. Next question.”
And the way to do that without retaliation is…???
A country using slave or child labor has much more to lose than anything we could possibly be exporting to that country.
Our trade deficit is so big now we have no place to go but up.
Retaliation? We stop buying stuff made in Vietnam, and they do what exactly? The manufacturing world is dependent upon our consumerism.
LE, you made the point in defending free trade that the rest of the world buys our stuff too…. what, exactly, does this country produce anymore? Free trade has gutted our manufacturing industry.
Americans WOULD have to get used to paying more for goods if they were made ethically. Remember how hard Southerners fought to keep THEIR free labor? many of em still haven’t gotten over it.
Also – let me add that Liberal Elite wants to be out of step with the mood of the electorate – which is fine for him (her?) but not great for candidates.
The great Paul Krugman once summed up our trade with China: “They send us poison toys, and we send them fraudulent securities.”
The manufacturing world is dependent upon our consumerism.
This is exactly right and exactly why eliminating or deconstructing *free trade* is going to be so hard.
No one is going to make a plastic fork in the US again, because they cost next to nothing to produce. It is going to be incredibly difficult to be able to manufacture something like that with what look like premium wages of Americans. US trade policy needs to be focused on the kind of manufacturing that can support the costs of American labor — which means higher-end manufacturing. The Germans figured it out. No reason why we can’t.
But as long at the American economy is powered by its citizens buying stuff and not making stuff, it is going to be tough to dismantle much of the current *free trade* infrastructure. I’ll also note that there is some of this that is our own fault. If we were tending to our infrastructure properly, there are definitely manufacturing opportunities we could be capitalizing on. But since bridge and tunnel repair, replacement or new construction is remarkably rare, we can’t sustain those kinds of manufacturing opportunities here.
ding ding ding! we could create jobs for millions for YEARS, simply by fixing our infrastructure. It isnt just bridges and tunnels either. Our pipes are leaching lead (it’s not just Flint) and our electrical grid is fragile. We dont have to blow up the current trade system, simply increase import tariffs, and use that to directly fund public works projects. Companies. Will. Pay. This idea that the retail world will abandon the US market over a couple percent tax increase is absolutely insane.
@j “Also – let me add that Liberal Elite wants to be out of step with the mood of the electorate – which is fine for him (her?) but not great for candidates.”
Because the mood is stupid.
Hillary can either pretend that free trade doesn’t matter, or she can work to educate the public. I’d prefer that she own the issue and try education.
She obviously has decided to run and hide instead.
…but that doesn’t mean that free trade isn’t important.
I think that there’s already been *education * from multiple administrations and candidates. People get that the trickle down business that is at the heart of it doesn’t work. What is needed is trade policy that encourages the kind of work American workers can add value and quality to.
Let me try to explain to some of you the Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement. I have attended numerous conferences with the National Council of State Legislators (who have consistently passed resolutions to oppose fast-track, CAFTA and other agreements that are harmful to the U.S. economy and workers. The recently concluded, totally secret negotiations have resulted in an agreement (to be ratified up or down with no changes or amendments by congress) with 11 countries. It was originally proposed to include a twelfth (China) who said no thank you. The discussion in Seattle include one of President Obama’s Deputy Trade Directors and the Seattle director of International Trade and Development. Both of these gentlemen carried the message for this Administration that the deal being constructed was a wonder to behold or something to the effect that Secretary Clinton had written recently. Included in those 11 countries was Malaysia. I and others questioned whether or not Malaysia’s abysmal human rights record did not in fact preclude it from being a participant in the TPP. The answer from these policy experts was that yes indeed it was but it had been downgraded to allow that countries participation. See:
“Human Rights First” All eyes were on Malaysia this week in anticipation of the State Department’s annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report. The country’s status would determine if the administration could engage in fast track negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Malaysia was indeed upgraded from Tier 3 to Tier 2 Watch List, allowing for fast track negotiations to proceed. Many human rights groups, Human Rights First included, warned that this undermines and politicizes the TIP report since Malaysia has not made significant improvement to its anti-trafficking efforts.
While Malaysia was upgraded prematurely, its government is making some progress. The TIP report states:
“The Government of Malaysia does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, however, it is making significant efforts to do so. In 2014, the government consulted with civil society stakeholders to draft and propose amendment strengthening the existing anti-trafficking law…”
More importantly from an economic perspective was the answer I received from the panel when I queried whether China’s refusal to sign on would not in fact give that country a monopoly of cheap labor costs with no environmental or safety controls that could entice our newfound friends into having products that Americans would buy being produced at slave-labor costs and conditions. I specifically asked if any of the signatories would be regulated, punished or suffer any consequences if they bought products from China, declared ownership and sold them to the good old USA at any price allowed under the trade agreement. The answer was a clear and simple NO. There are no regulatory or restrictive or punitive action in the TPP to prevent this behavior so advantage China.
Guaranteed TPP effects:
1)make it easier for big corporations to ship our jobs overseas, pushing down our wages and increasing income inequality,
2)flood our country with unsafe imported food,
3)jack up the cost of medicines by giving big pharmaceutical corporations new monopoly rights to keep lower cost generic drugs off the market,
•
4)empower corporations to attack our environmental and health safeguards,
5)ban Buy American policies needed to create green jobs,
6)roll back Wall Street reforms,
7)sneak in SOPA-like threats to Internet freedom,
8)undermine human rights.